PDA

View Full Version : Another Quote from a Smart Guy



llotter
09-28-2012, 01:05 PM
http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/225950_10151069945300911_2027270581_n.jpg

DiabloViejo
09-28-2012, 02:05 PM
I'm sorry that you're feeling all butthurt about having to pay taxes. OH GOD, HOW HORRIBLE HAVING TO CONTRIBUTE FINANCIALLY TO THE HEALTH AND WELFARE OF A SOCIETY WHICH YOU ENJOY THE BENEFITS OF EVERY SINGLE DAY.

Golly, taxes sure do suck. I suppose you think that it's better to be like a selfish infant and never have to spend a penny on anything you donít want to spend it on, even while you benefit from national parks, museums, FDIC insured banks, the Post Office, emergency services like firefighters, police officers, 911 service, public schools, public libraries, funding for the arts, public broadcasting, and clean air and water, Medicare, Social Security, highways, bridges, tunnels, safe food and medicine, scientific advances, space exploration, national disaster preparedness, weather reports, storm tracking, garbage pick-up, sewage treatment plants, roads that are swept or plowed, and so on.

I bet you think you're a real patriot, don't you? Well, I pay taxes too, and I see things differently. To me a real patriot realizes that taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society.

LWW
09-28-2012, 02:53 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DiabloViejo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm sorry that you're feeling all butthurt about having to pay taxes. OH GOD, HOW HORRIBLE HAVING TO CONTRIBUTE FINANCIALLY TO THE HEALTH AND WELFARE OF A SOCIETY WHICH YOU ENJOY THE BENEFITS OF EVERY SINGLE DAY.

Golly, taxes sure do suck. I suppose you think that it's better to be like a selfish infant and never have to spend a penny on anything you donít want to spend it on, even while you benefit from national parks, museums, FDIC insured banks, the Post Office, emergency services like firefighters, police officers, 911 service, public schools, public libraries, funding for the arts, public broadcasting, and clean air and water, Medicare, Social Security, highways, bridges, tunnels, safe food and medicine, scientific advances, space exploration, national disaster preparedness, weather reports, storm tracking, garbage pick-up, sewage treatment plants, roads that are swept or plowed, and so on.

I bet you think you're a real patriot, don't you? Well, I pay taxes too, and I see things differently. To me a real patriot realizes that taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society. </div></div>

You are not a net taxpayer and you know it.

DiabloViejo
09-28-2012, 03:18 PM
Really, is that why every year the wife and I have to cut a substantial check to the IRS? If I were single and filing as such you would be right, but I am married and file jointly and our combined income is right at just a bit over 100K. BTW, do you now claim to be omniscient and a CPA/expert on tax issues, as well as an expert on everything else in the universe? What the f*ck do you know about my personal finances? I'll tell you what you know..not a damned thing so shut you festering piehole and stop making a fool of yourself.

llotter
09-28-2012, 04:08 PM
The quote is not talking about taxes as much as it targets those getting handouts without contributing, the makers vs the takers. The Takers are often labeled as greedy and the takers are usually labeled as those in need in spite of the fact that they are taking by force.

The evidence looks to me like the more redistribution there is, the more uncivil the society becomes. A prima facie case would be the inner cities and at least obvious are the increase in virtually every undesirable statistic and a decrease of the desirable one.

Soflasnapper
09-28-2012, 05:00 PM
No, don't complicate the message that much.

This is a protest of his, as a libertarian, against paying ANY taxes (maybe except for national defense, some police protections and some courts), and especially against the progressive income tax, where the higher income brackets pay at a higher marginal rate. And obviously, against the estate tax as well.

There is a semi-coherent theory behind it, but it really is unseemly whining, and a child-like understanding of the value of living in a society such as the US. He is free to migrate to libertarian paradises where there is no rule of law, and to see how he enjoys it there. He's also free to advocate his peculiar views be adopted in our society. We are also free to yawn, and poke fun at such a child-like fantasy theory as he holds.

Qtec
09-29-2012, 12:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the makers vs the takers. </div></div>

Yet another attempt by the GOP to divide the nation and play the class warfare card.

Q

Gayle in MD
09-29-2012, 07:29 AM
Yes, and to attempt to cover up who the big takers actually are.

Glad Mitsey cleared that up for all of us, LOL.

G.

Gayle in MD
09-29-2012, 07:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The quote is not talking about taxes as much as it targets those getting handouts without contributing, the makers vs the takers. The Takers are often labeled as greedy and the takers are usually labeled as those in need in spite of the fact that they are taking by force.

The evidence looks to me like the more redistribution there is, the more uncivil the society becomes. A prima facie case would be the inner cities and at least obvious are the increase in virtually every undesirable statistic and a decrease of the desirable one. </div></div>

Your confusion and racism shines like a big ugly boil through everything you write.



G.

Soflasnapper
09-29-2012, 09:13 AM
Not to mention he has it backwards.

The far closer to laissez-faire capitalism of the 19th and early 20th centuries broke itself on the rocks of greed and financial manipulation. Worldwide. It was known as the Great Depression.

The people of the world looked for an alternative. Two alternatives rose to bid for their time as the social organizing principle: fascism and Communism. Both had strong appeal since the form of capitalism of the day had so utterly failed the people.

The solution haltingly adapted was for the failed capitalism of the day to be augmented with the rudiments of a social welfare state. FDR co-opted, under pressure, the platform of Eugene Debbs et al. Western Europe went further, but only as of after WW II's showdown with Nazi fascism, which the capitalists of that day had supported, as at least a bulwark against Soviet Russia's Communism (and a swell way to make money).

llotter
09-29-2012, 12:12 PM
Sorry, that was a bit of a typo but I'm sure you folks could figure out what I meant. Makers are often called greedy and takers arouse sympathy despite the fact that they use force.

It does seem to me that while the marketplace always fails to achieve Utopia, the statist failures that result are many worse and is totally unaccountable.

eg8r
09-30-2012, 06:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The quote is not talking about taxes as much as it targets those getting handouts without contributing, the makers vs the takers.</div></div>Speaking to diablow is like speaking to a brick wall. This is way above his head.

eg8r

eg8r
09-30-2012, 06:38 AM
LOL, yep and Obama and the left divide the nation by saying those who earn their money should not be allowed to keep it and that the poor are more deserving of that hard earned money.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
09-30-2012, 08:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not to mention he has it backwards.

</div></div>

Absolutely!


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">OH GOD, HOW HORRIBLE HAVING TO CONTRIBUTE FINANCIALLY TO THE HEALTH AND WELFARE OF A SOCIETY WHICH YOU ENJOY THE BENEFITS OF EVERY SINGLE DAY.

</div></div>


Describes the entire Repiglican Party, and Mitsey in particular!

G.

Soflasnapper
09-30-2012, 11:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, yep and Obama and the left divide the nation by saying those who earn their money should not be allowed to keep it and that the poor are more deserving of that hard earned money.

eg8r </div></div>

When they advocate the 90%+ marginal tax rate for the top that prevailed in this country from WW II through Eisenhower (the noted leftist who refused to move that rate), maybe you'd begin to have a shred of a point. Or even the ~70% rate (slightly under what France just imposed at 75%), which JFK pushed through over then-Republican opoposition over worries over deficits. (Do you think the Republican party of Eisenhower, and in 1961, was THE LEFT???? Because their emphasis was that we needed to pay our bills and not run up our debt? And this was before MC or Medicaid, and they STILL thought we needed to keep the 90% for the fiscal health of our national balance sheet.)

How about the noted leftist Reagan, who thought a 50% marginal tax rate on the top was entirely fair in his view, as he testified to in Congressional hearings as a member of the private sector, and then put in place for his historic tax cut plan for his first six years in office, and under which rate the Reagan 'Morning Again in America' recovery occurred?

That's all that's in question-- a marginal tax rate somewhere north of 35%, but well below the 50% that even Reagan found optimum. 4.5% more, basically. And then to reduce the tax break to people who do not work but have their money work for them, which again, Reagan had totally eliminated, making the cap gains tax rate the same as the ordinary earned income rate.

I'm guessing you didn't know this history, or forgot it, or are so in the thrall of the Overton window switch of where the center and the right are that you haven't noticed it puts Reagan himself supposedly squarely in the leftist consensus, by using a form of amnesia about what is recent history.

eg8r
09-30-2012, 12:12 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When they advocate the 90%+ marginal tax rate for the top that prevailed in this country from WW II through Eisenhower (the noted leftist who refused to move that rate), maybe you'd begin to have a shred of a point. </div></div>Don't play retarded. These types of idiotic statements come from diablow. If you raise the taxes any % then you are taking money that is not yours to give to the poor.

Obama has been the great divider.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
09-30-2012, 01:36 PM
So, when you don't understand things, other people are retarded, making idiotic statements.

I see.

When you are willing to advocate zero tax rates, let me know that plan. Until then, it is in the foundation of this country to tax the populace, and provided for as legitimate enumerated power of Congress in the COTUS. Even going back to raising revenues to the federal government with tariffs is to tax the people, at the checkout lane by higher end user costs.

Given that we tax, how it is apportioned slightly more or less one way or another is not more theft, just haggling over the price. There is little dissent from the progressive income tax theory, and what dissent there is is STILL to tax, under various flat or FAIR schemes.

For the top bracket to pay more is not to give to the poor. Where do you get that idea? It's to pay (mainly) for the wars and the debt piled up to pay for them, which used to be common sense on the right and among conservatives.

llotter
09-30-2012, 05:07 PM
If all of the redistribution/transfer payments could be eliminated, then a mere 6-7% flat tax would be adequate to support everything else. Now, who would vote for that?

Soflasnapper
09-30-2012, 06:50 PM
Making families bear the costs of their elders as to health care costs and money needs would be most unpalatable to the non-seniors and the seniors alike.

And it would save no money, net, as those costs would still exist. It would simply shift who pays and how, directly instead of indirectly. More or less the Romney/Ryan concept on how to 'cut' Medicare spending, which only moves the cost to the elderly and their families, not cutting anything from the cost.

There are far more lucrative areas to cut, which would not have such effects, and that is the $1.2 trillion in annual tax expenditures (tax breaks), and the close to $1 trillion in ridiculously overblown 'defense' spending.

eg8r
09-30-2012, 07:06 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, when you don't understand things, other people are retarded, making idiotic statements.

I see.</div></div>Nope, just when I read your idiotic statements.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When you are willing to advocate zero tax rates, let me know that plan.</div></div>More idiotic statements. You have heard me mention the Fair Tax plan many times. When did your brain start thinking that meant zero tax or that I was in favor of zero tax.

eg8r

LWW
10-01-2012, 03:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, when you don't understand things, other people are retarded, making idiotic statements.

I see.</div></div>Nope, just when I read your idiotic statements.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When you are willing to advocate zero tax rates, let me know that plan.</div></div>More idiotic statements. You have heard me mention the Fair Tax plan many times. When did your brain start thinking that meant zero tax or that I was in favor of zero tax.

eg8r </div></div>

When his handlers told him to think that.

The FAIR TAX reduces state power and empowers the individual ... hence leftists will aways hate it no matter what good it would do.

I have offered to send books from my own library to help the cabal understand things, and not one of them had the testicular/ovarian fortitude to review data not spoon fed to them by the party.

Soflasnapper
10-01-2012, 09:46 AM
If you favor the FAIR tax, then you support raising the same amount of money via that tax as the current system does (a key claim for the FAIR tax advocates), just simply making the 99% pay more and letting the 1% pay less.

GREAT! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

And then how do we make progress on the deficit and the debt? You could zero out the entirety of the whole domestic discretionary budget and still not save the $1.2 trillion in current deficit levels.

The same is true for Romney's plan, as it pretends to be only revenue neutral.

Isn't it obvious that paying down the debt requires the government run (now, more later) $15 TRILLION in SURPLUSES? Over years, certainly, but still. Who has the plan to do that? Even Ryan's plan takes 20 years to reach a balanced budget, during which time the $15 trillion grows to $20 trillion or more.

Gayle in MD
10-01-2012, 10:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you favor the FAIR tax, then you support raising the same amount of money via that tax as the current system does (a key claim for the FAIR tax advocates), just simply making the 99% pay more and letting the 1% pay less.

GREAT! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

And then how do we make progress on the deficit and the debt? You could zero out the entirety of the whole domestic discretionary budget and still not save the $1.2 trillion in current deficit levels.

The same is true for Romney's plan, as it pretends to be only revenue neutral.

Isn't it obvious that paying down the debt requires the government run (now, more later) $15 TRILLION in SURPLUSES? Over years, certainly, but still. Who has the plan to do that? Even Ryan's plan takes 20 years to reach a balanced budget, during which time the $15 trillion grows to $20 trillion or more. </div></div>


He has no clue about economics!


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Do you feel like a big boy now that you get to use those "grown up words"? It looks juvenile. Besides that, customers do not create, that is the reason why they are called consumers. I am well aware of the role each group plays in the economy but the fact is customers do not create anything other than demand and demand cannot be there if the product was not there in the first place, which it cannot be there unless someone with some money fronted a business and hired people to perform the job to create that good or service to be sold.

eg8r


</div></div>



/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

eg8r
10-01-2012, 01:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you favor the FAIR tax, then you support raising the same amount of money via that tax as the current system does (a key claim for the FAIR tax advocates), just simply making the 99% pay more and letting the 1% pay less.

GREAT!</div></div>LOL, you are man enough to admit you don't believe the "fair" BS lefties normally tout. The Fair Tax is more "fair" than anything you have proposed or anything from the left.

eg8r

eg8r
10-01-2012, 01:29 PM
LOL, it is funny watching the witch in md follow me around these days. LOL, I can't wait till she starts up her old tried and true lie about never reading my posts. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

llotter
10-02-2012, 07:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Making families bear the costs of their elders as to health care costs and money needs would be most unpalatable to the non-seniors and the seniors alike.

And it would save no money, net, as those costs would still exist. It would simply shift who pays and how, directly instead of indirectly. More or less the Romney/Ryan concept on how to 'cut' Medicare spending, which only moves the cost to the elderly and their families, not cutting anything from the cost.

There are far more lucrative areas to cut, which would not have such effects, and that is the $1.2 trillion in annual tax expenditures (tax breaks), and the close to $1 trillion in ridiculously overblown 'defense' spending. </div></div>

Your comments show such a fundamental lack of understanding of the free market and freedom itself that I was uncertain whether it is worth the effort to respond at all. But you seem like a nice guy that deserves some help getting back on the 'right' track and this is a chance for me to lend a hand to someone in need.

First, it is not conservative freedom lovers that 'make' people do things as you state, that is the world in which the leftists operate. Freedom mean letting people run their own lives and not dictating or 'making' them do whatever politicians think is best, not what the citizens themselves may want. Hence, for example, we have Social Security and Medicare being forced onto the citizens, taking 15.4% of what they earn, therefore leaving them with less money to deal with their own problems and more dependent. Dependency on the forced support from others is not freedom.

Second, you make the mistaken claim that 'costs would still exist' but the truth is that the costs would decrease dramatically to a level determined by the free market rather than elitist eggheads in DC. It is those eggheads that decided that because healthcare is important to everyone, to first, make employer based insurance tax deductible and then later to have government itself become a psuedo-insurance company with compulsory participation. These steps have massively redirected funds away from the free market levels and, through simple laws of supply and demand, have driven costs way up.

The beauty of the free market is that price levels will be precisely what people are willing to pay of their own free will. Once the healthcare industry has been cut down to market levels, other areas that have suffered for lack of funding will begin to prosper as free citizens can then redirect their funds as they see fit.

I would agree with you last point on tax breaks but probably from a different perspective. Essentially 'tax breaks' are used to manipulate citizen behavior and that should never be done through the tax code, IMO. Therefore I support a flat tax that falls on everyone equally, from first dollar to last.

Qtec
10-02-2012, 07:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your comments show such a fundamental lack of understanding of the free market </div></div>

There is no FREE market.

Name me one market in the USA that is not manipulated.

Here's one, the housing market! ...Yeah RRRRRRight.:D

LOL

Oil?

The stock market?

Q


Q

Qtec
10-02-2012, 07:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The beauty of the free market is that price levels will be precisely what people are willing to pay of their own free will. </div></div>

More BS.

Q

LWW
10-02-2012, 08:09 AM
You don't even know what a free market is.